May I ask the Prime Minister if he can state what business he proposes to take to-morrow and during the rest of the week?

To-morrow I shall move a Vote of Credit.

On Thursday we propose to take the Report of that Vote.

It will be for the convenience of the House if I add that we propose to sit three days a week—Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

Can the Prime Minister say whether he contemplates making any general statement on the military position, having regard to the fact that a statement is already promised for another place?

I am going to move a Vote of Credit to-morrow, and I shall then review the situation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the position of the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill, and when we may expect to consider that?

It is in the House of Lords at present.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is coming down?

As the House is to sit three days a week will the right hon. Gentleman make the same arrangements in regard to notice of questions?

Yes.

Will the Prime Minister to-morrow deal with the question of recruiting?

I cannot anticipate what I shall say to-morrow.

As representing a group of Liberal and Unionist Members, I desire to ask whether the Prime Minister will give us an opportunity to discuss National Service at an early date?

I am not prepared at present to make any statement.

I think it is only fair that we should be allowed to say that we had made an attempt—

The hon. Gentleman can ask a question, but not make a statement.

Will the Prime Minister give any answer to the deputation which is anxious to wait upon him in order to save the necessity of such a debate?

I do not think this is a matter which can be conveniently dealt with by way of deputation.

I should like to take this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the question of holding a secret Session of this House, in order that Members may receive information in regard to the position of affairs which it is not advisable to give to the public. I may say so far as I am concerned that I have not made up my mind, but the matter has been discussed by so many Members and has been debated so frequently that I think it would, perhaps, be convenient if the head of the Government could see his way to indicate whether the Government are prepared to take a step of this kind in order that Members can be made aware of the situation. I propose it upon this ground, that it is exceedingly difficult for private Members, who are pressed on all sides to act up to their duty, to be quite sure whether they can make any effective or advisable intervention. It is for this reason that I suggest to the Government that perhaps we should have a clearer idea of what we ought to say when we address public meetings, and what kind of questions we ought to submit to Ministers in this House, if the Government were frank in the House with the representatives of the people in disclosing facts which are not within our purview at the present time.

Before the Prime Minister answers the hon. Member, it might be convenient if I put another question to him at the same time. I desire to know whether his attention has been drawn to a statement which appears in all the London newspapers this morning, and particularly in the "Times," which is signed professedly by a number of gentlemen, who describe themselves as "officers in His Majesty's Service, now on active service"? It is in the nature of a manifesto, calling on the Government and this House to adopt compulsory service. I desire to know whether it is in accordance with the well-recognised principles of this country that officers on active service, describing themselves as officers on active service, should during War time address to the public Press manifestoes dealing with public political matters of acute political controversy? I am one of those who have desired that this question should not be raised at all so as to excite anything in the nature of a public controversy, calculated to break up the unity which has so admirably and so wonderfully characterised the people of this country since this War broke out. But it has been forced forward by certain gentlemen and certain agencies, to which I do not intend at this moment to allude, and it is notorious that at this moment the people of this country are on the eve of what I cannot help describing as a great catastrophe, if they are pushed by these agencies into what may be a bitter political controversy. And I do appeal to the Prime Minister and the authorities at the War Office, if we are to be driven into this misfortune in this House, whose business it is to deal with the politics of this country—or at least it used to be recognised that it was its business to do so—then that the Army at least should be spared.

I feel bound to give notice to the Prime Minister that, if this kind of thing is going to be tolerated, I shall ask on the floor of the House whether the same facilities will be given for non-commissioned officers and the rank and file of the Army who object to conscription? [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they?"] I have had communications from them; I know that they exist; and I beg of you to take warning by what has occurred in this House at this moment. Do not, for God's sake, introduce these contentious questions into the ranks of your Army in face of the enemy. I think that it is most unfortunate, having broken the late Government, and having brought in as representative a Government as you can get, that you will not trust this matter to the Government, but must have these agitations engineered by newspapers, and this interference with the discretion of the Government on this question. But if that must be, then do not at least introduce the question into the ranks of the Army itself. There are in the Army a great many men who do not believe in conscription. I do not know which way the majority would go, but is it proposed, or can it be contemplated by any rational sane man in this House, that you should put it to the test of the Army to find out whether they are in favour of conscription or not? Yet that is what these men are doing. I have felt conscientiously bound at the very outset of our proceedings to draw attention to this fact, and to say that, unless you are prepared to accord to the non-commissioned officers and rank and file of the Army the same facilities as these men have arrogated to themselves, because they are Peers and Members of Parliament, this thing must be stopped, and ought to be stopped, in the interests of the Army itself, in the interests of the country, and in the interests of the cause which we are all united in seeking to support. I beg of these Gentlemen who are determined to force on this disastrous controversy to believe, at least at the outset, that those of us who are determined to oppose this proposal, until at any rate an overwhelming case is made out for it—and no case has been made out for it yet—I beg of them, in the interests of the cause which they have at heart and which, I trust, they will give us the credit of believing we have equally at heart, that they will give credit for good intentions to all who may differ from them on this matter, and that they will go on taking every necessary step to keep this controversy, if it must come off, from the ranks of the Army itself.

I am extremely glad that the hon. Member opposite has raised this question, which has, of course, been agitating the mind of every man who is at the same time a Member of this House and serving in the Army or Navy. The question is whether we have a right to retain our liberty of thought and liberty of action as politicians while at the same time we wear His Majesty's uniform. I made up my mind completely on the subject, and until the Government take some very firm step, or until the War Office cashier me out of the Army or out of the Navy, I am prepared to reserve to myself, both here and in the country, the right to express what I think on every question, political or military, that may come before this House. I take up that position not simply because I want to run counter to the views of hon. Members who do not agree with me, but because it has always been the habit of Members of this House who belong to the fighting ranks of either Service to come here to express their views. If you go back to history, to the days of the Great War 100 years ago, to the time of the American struggle for independence from 1776 to 1784—if you look back into our records of those days, you will find a great many hon. Members, colonels and generals in the Army, coming to this House and voicing opinions, very often directly opposed to those of their immediate chiefs in the Army or the Navy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not when on active service."] Yes, while on active service. They came back from America and expressed their views on these questions, and I now maintain that we have the very heavy duty laid upon us to express our views, because, whereas in those days only a minute proportion of the electorate of the country were fighting in the field, now you have millions of electors fighting in the field, millions of men who are accidentally deprived of the franchise in this country, but who are none the less citizens of the country, and who ought to be able to influence the views of Members of Parliament in the only way in which they can do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Through their officers."] Through their officers, or by such means as are open to them. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gwynn) and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Sir H. Raphael) are, so far as I know, the only Members of this House who have had the courage, or the sense of responsibility, to enlist in the Army as privates. If hon. Members opposite or the Government are going to deprive us of the right of expressing our views in this House—

The hon. Member has mistaken the whole point of my speech. I was most careful not to challenge the right of any hon. Member in this House to express his opinion, but this is a manifesto addressed to the newspapers, which is a totally different matter.

This is a manifesto signed by Members, who often receive circulars to which they attach their signatures. It is a very common practice in this House. It is signed by Members of this House, who have a perfect right to tell the public what their views are. Through the accident of my being abroad, my signature did not appear to that. Having just recently returned from France, I am absolutely convinced that it is not only in the interests of the electors abroad, but also in the interests of the whole of this country, that there should be a free and frank expression in this House of the views of the Army in the field. I add my view to the expression of opinion already given by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who is in favour of a Secret Session, so that we can speak out. I think that whether you have a Secret Session or whether you have a public Session, it is absolutely necessary that this country should cease to play the rôle of the ostrich, and should speak out on these matters, even though it may give temporary satisfaction in Berlin. I am convinced that it is only by means of free speaking, by expressing our views frankly and fearlessly, that we can secure a satisfactory ending of this War.

The speech of the hon. Member below the Gangway seemed to give a very false impression of the attitude of the steps taken by the group of Members with whom I am associated in regard to this question. I think I may be borne out if I just remind the Prime Minister that from the commencement, although we are a band of very determined men in support of our view, we have been equally determined to avoid adding to the flame of the agitation which at present exists in this country; but the fact that other people are agitating seems to me to afford no reason why we should resign and give up our efforts. We have endeavoured from the very commencement to avoid any connection with any manifesto. The communication in the "Times" of Saturday last, which requested leave to deputise or memorialise the Prime Minister, was put there not by any instigation of ours, but by some breach of confidence, which occasionally occurs. We still ask you to give us a day for this matter, and for this matter only. We have got things to say which we think have been left too long unsaid; and, as regards the attitude of the Army, some of us who have been with it will do our best, when the occasion comes, to put its point of view.

I only rise for a moment, lest my silence, sitting as I do on the same bench with the hon. and gallant Gentleman may appear to give consent to the views which he has expressed; not that I am opposed to compulsory service; on the contrary, I have always been in its favour. I was a supporter of Lord Roberts. I often wondered how it was that the advice given by that distinguished man had so little support in this country. I have often thought that if his view had been taken in time it is more than probable that we should not have been engaged in this War. Now that we are engaged in this War, and this demand is made upon the Government, I own that there is a reason which, to my mind, is absolutely overwhelming, why we should leave it to them to decide whether compulsory service is needed in the interests of the country or not, and it is this: They are possessed of the fullest possible information on every branch of this question, which we, who are not in the Government, lack. I may make some exception perhaps, in favour of the hon. Member who has seen service himself, but with regard to the general run of Members of the House of Commons, they cannot for a moment be possessed of the knowledge which is absolutely requisite for forming a just and right opinion on this subject. These are the views that I hold, and I wish to dissociate myself entirely and completely from the views which the hon. Member has set forth.

I hope that the Government will not give way to clamour on this question. I think that the experience of the past week or two demonstrates that it is not men we want so much as material, and to my mind those who are taking part in this clamorous agitation are doing a great disservice to the country. I do not know that it is necessary to say more than that; but I think, from everything that has taken place, that those who are carrying on this violent and clamorous agitation are doing a disservice to the country, because they are going to disunite us in face of the common danger, at a time when it is necessary that we should show a united front—not only to the enemy but for the benefit of our Allies. If we are going to resuscitate political differences—because that is what it comes to—I am really afraid that it will have an injurious effect upon our Allies. I dare say that most Members of this House have realised that a great disservice was done by our Pacifist friends in France, because our French Allies believed that their movement was much stronger than it really is. I, in conjunction with a few friends, went to Paris a week or two ago for the purpose of demonstrating the weakness of that movement and we allayed to some extent those suspicions which this agitation, that I have described as clamorous, is going to revive in the minds of our French Allies. This agitation ought not to be encouraged in any shape or form, and I trust that the Government will say most decidedly and strongly that the time has not come for giving effect to any ideas which have been promulgated by those who are in favour of so-called National Service. We all know that the need of the moment is material and not men. You cannot equip the men you are getting, and why clamour for more. We need an immense variety of munitions, and we want three hundred thousand more men for that work. You cannot send men to the front and have them in the workshop at the same time. If you want munitions for the men at the front, you cannot take men away who are needed to supply those munitions. I for my part trust that the Government will state their position in language which cannot be misunderstood by those who are seeking at the moment to disunite us.

We have listened to a rather interesting speech from my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge), who is in temporary command of the Labour party. He has invited the Government to refuse a discussion on this question and straight away he commences himself a discussion on the very thing. I disagree with my hon. Friend and with my hon. and gallant Friend who sits beside him, and with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, in the conclusions they have come to in this matter as to the merits of the subject, but where I agree with them is that I think, as the controversy has now developed, it is impossible to prevent discussion in the House of Commons and for the following reasons: We have had going on for a considerable period a discussion in the Press. In a large number of newspaper organs we have had leading articles, and we have had more or less inspired statements regarding the attitude of the Cabinet, and, at the same time, we have had communications from a large number of public men both for and against on this controversy. Then we have had a meeting of the Trades Union Congress, with which I presume my hon. Friend who has just spoken has some influence. They have naturally and quite properly expressed an opinion on the subject. We have even had statements as to discussions in the Cabinet. We have seen tabulated lists of members of the Cabinet, showing so many in favour of Conscription and so many against Conscription, and so many uncommitted or sitting on the fence. [An HON. MEMBER: "And passed by the Censor."] Yes, and I understand passed by the Censor. We have had also public statements by Ministers of the Crown. We have had a preface the other day to a book not yet published, in which there is a challenge given to the Cabinet, given to Parliament and given to the country, to adopt Conscription, and, on the contrary, we have another member of the Cabinet speaking at a recruiting meeting in his constituency deliberately controverting the propositions put forward in this prophetic and inspired preface.

Surely in these days it cannot be said that the House of Commons is to be the only place in the country where this subject is not to be discussed. I quite admit we have not much left of our representative capacity since we are nearly at the end of our time. By Statute passed by ourselves we are to die next January, when we should go to the country. Indeed, if you take the old septennial system, you will find that by constitutional usage very rarely did any Parliament exceed the period to which we have run. Consequently we are a moribund Parliament. But, even so, it is the only Parliament that there is and it is the only one we are likely to have, because we are now, after having diminished our life, about to be asked to prolong it indefinitely; but, even on that basis, surely it is for the House of Commons to give some guidance to the country. We know that the Cabinet is disunited, and yet we are asked by my hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party and by a number of other people in this House to trust the Government implicitly, after the differences of the Government have been advertised not only to this country, but all over the world. Surely that is an impossible situation. It is necessary to have a discussion and it is also necessary in the House of Commons to have a discussion based upon information, and if it is only possible to have a discussion based upon information, then let us have a Secret Session of the House of Commons. I am quite sure such a discussion held in this House on the question will have a great influence upon the country, and if we are to have a wise decision on the matter it will surely be in a better position to come to such a decision after a well-informed discussion in the House of Commons. In other words, we shall have a decision which will command confidence and tend to preserve national unity.

I think the speeches to which we have listened must assure the Prime Minister that discussion of this matter is absolutely necessary. I understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon) to say that he did not wish this matter discussed in this House; but the House is the very place where it ought to be discussed. What is the object of Parliament, if we are to come here and discuss only those matters on which we are agreed. The very fact that the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway does not agree with certain hon. Members opposite and on this side shows that it is necessary that there should be a discussion in which they may be convinced, or in which he may convince them. The hon. Member who is leading the Labour party tells us that we do not want more men, but that what we want is more men for munitions. That may be so. I am not in the secrets or confidence of the Govern- merit. I do not know if it is so; but, if it is, why do we have pink forms and registration, and why is everybody going all over the country holding recruiting meetings? And is it not the fact that Lord Kitchener, a short time ago, informed us that we wanted 300,000 men; and is it not also the fact—and I heard it myself—that Lord Kitchener made a speech in the Guildhall saying that he was able to equip recruits and that recruits were necessary, and should come forward at the present moment? Therefore, the hon. Member has made a mistake. He does not know what he is talking about. He has made statements which are not correct. The only person who can correct him and possibly myself—for I may be wrong—is the Prime Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] If not the Prime Minister, then it must be either the Prime Minister or Lord Kitchener. I do not know anyone else who can do so. They can only do so if they will state whether they do or do not want men. For myself, I do not think there can be any question whatever that we do want men.

Under those circumstances, what is the use of refusing to discuss one of the most important and vital questions which can be raised in this year or any other year? We are here to support the Government as long as they do their best to bring the War to a speedy conclusion. We think that in order to do that you must have National Service. We may be wrong, but surely that is a question that ought to be discussed, and the House of Commons is surely the proper place to discuss it. If not, why come here at all, and why not let us go back to where we came from. What is the use of coming here to say ditto, whether we agree or not, to anybody who gets up on the Front Bench and tells us what to do? In the middle of the war in the Crimea there was a discussion, and I am not at all sure that there was not a Vote of Censure moved on the then Government. There are some of us who think the Government are too slow. There are some of us who think they invite people to take command of aviation after a paper has told them it ought to be done. I think we are justified in asking for a discussion on this subject, and there are many of us who are determined to press this question until we get a proper and fair discussion in this House.

I think that whatever view Members of the House may take of the important question which is now before us we shall all be agreed, at any rate, that a Motion for the Adjournment is not perhaps the best opportunity to place our views before the House. At the same time it must be admitted that Members cannot be complained of for any occasion they may take in asking for more information on this subject. It has been discussed, and is being discussed, outside the House. That is largely due to the fact that the Government themselves have not taken the public into their confidence, and have kept to themselves information which might reasonably have been given to the public. The result to-day is that Members of this House are not qualified in my opinion to express a really important and logical view on the present situation. The moral of this Debate, I think, is that the Government ought to take the House and the public into their confidence more than they have done. It seems to be a case in which the Government cannot make up their mind on this as on many other questions, such as cotton, aliens, and other matters, on which this House had month after month to press upon them before they came to a decision. Here we have within the last two days a Government which is supposed to be united, and we have from the Minister of Munitions a statement which I think is of grave importance and a statement to which, so far as my knowledge goes, I subscribe most heartily, because its intention is to let the nation know the serious difficulties with which we are faced. Then we have a member of the same Cabinet last night replying to the Minister of Munitions—because that is what the speech means—and practically saying, "Do not be alarmed; put your feet on the mantelpiece and smoke a good cigar; everything is going well." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] That is the meaning of the speech. "I knew," he says, "when the War broke out, that it was going to last two years." I wish he had shown more industry in seeing that our Army was equipped. The right hon. Gentleman is present; perhaps he will explain.

It is not right for the Cabinet at the present moment to allow outside opinions to dominate and discuss this urgent and important question. Let the Cabinet give us the information which they have. Let them appeal to us not to discuss this question for a certain time, and I venture to say the House will respond. Let the Prime Minister say he is convinced that no further action is necessary, and the House and the country will accept his statement. But do not let us have the public outside discussing this and other questions, and the Cabinet practically giving no lead at all. Let the Cabinet give a lead in this vital matter. Let them tell the country what is required. Let them tell the country whether they are satisfied. Let the Prime Minister say whether he agrees with the Minister of Munitions or with the First Commissioner of Works. But in Heaven's name, if they are going to make speeches, as Lord Palmerston once told his Cabinet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lord Melbourne!"]—Lord Melbourne once told his Cabinet, they should all say the same thing. The country is puzzled, and the public are getting anxious. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to solve this matter in the only way in which, in my opinion, it can be solved now, by giving the House of Commons, at as early a date as possible, an opportunity of expressing its views, and letting us at the same time hear the views, if they have any, of His Majesty's Government.

I was asked to be one of those who joined in signing the paper which has been alluded to by the hon. Member who commenced this Debate, and to accompany a deputation to the Prime Minister on the subject. I replied somewhat in this fashion: "There is only one man at the present time capable of saying when National Service is necessary and imperative, and that is Lord Kitchener. I personally deprecate most earnestly any trying to force the hands of the Government and interfering with Lord Kitchener." I felt perfectly certain that when the right time came, when all the preparations and calculations had been made, Lord Kitchener would go to the Cabinet and say, "We must have this thing," and the Cabinet would not dare to refuse it. I agree with many of the views expressed by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hodge), except when he laid it down as an absolute fact that we do not want more men in the Army, but that we want men to make munitions. I make the same answer to him. There is only one man, or perhaps there are two men—the Minister of Munitions and the Minister for War—who can say how many men we want for munitions and how many as soldiers. The matter ought to be left to those two men to decide. There are many calculations to be made before this subject can be thoroughly thrashed out. In the first place, you want to know what munitions you want and how many men you require to turn them out. You want to know—and you will get it from the pink papers, I believe—how many men will be available at any particular time. The calculation has to be made of how many men you can turn out at any given time—that is to say, how many men you can feed, clothe, arm, and drill. It is useless to discuss whether or not a measure is necessary until you know all these facts. There is only one man who will have all these facts at his fingers' ends when the calculations have been worked out, and that is Lord Kitchener. I think it would be much better for the country if all discussion, both in this House, in the newspapers, and in the country, were put a stop to, and if all the people would wait with patience till the one man who does know the business finds it the right time to speak out.

It is all very well to say that the Government ought to stop all discussion, but how can you stop the discussion of the subject which fills the mind of every man in the House? Whether or not the House of Commons should discuss it, I think the House of Commons should determine, led by the only Leader of the House of Commons—the Government. If the Government tell us that we ought not to discuss it, I think they will find that they have a large majority in the House of Commons willing to consent not to discuss the matter. That is a point upon which the Government are bound to give us a lead. But if we are to have a discussion let it be a discussion in the face of the public. We want no secret Sessions, of which unauthorised versions will get to the public. Members representing constituencies should state their views openly, and say what they think for the benefit of their constituents and of the country.

If we, as Members of the House of Commons, are merely to accept the views of the Government, we might as well go home or do more useful work elsewhere. The Government have had a free run for the last thirteen months. They have conducted the War under a sense of secrecy and a censorship unparalleled in the history of this or any other country. I venture to say—and my opinion has been confirmed by what I have heard in the last six weeks of so-called holiday—that the country is beginning to be a little bit tired of the censorship and the holding back of information. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Hickman) said that we ought to be guided by Lord Kitchener. Let us know what Lord Kitchener thinks. On a question such as that of compulsory service I should be prepared to be guided very largely by Lord Kitchener, but I am not prepared to be guided by what somebody else may say Lord Kitchener ought to think. That is the difference between us. If Lord Kitchener goes to the House of Lords and tells us how many men we have recruited, and how many we need to have recruited; if he says on his responsibility as Secretary of State for War and with knowledge of all the facts that it is undesirable that we should have compulsory service, naturally Lord Kitchener's statement would have great power. But if we, as Members of the House of Commons, are simply to be told that because Lord Kitchener has said nothing, therefore we are to assume that Lord Kitchener thinks compulsory service is not necessary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is the only argument we have had against the proposed Debate—that because Lord Kitchener has said nothing, therefore we are to say nothing. Really I cannot see the good of our being elected Members of the House of Commons in order to say "ditto" to the nothing of somebody else. There are other questions besides that of compulsory service. I think the Government had better realise it; and that their policy of secrecy cannot go on very much longer. The country is determined to know how this War is being carried on. It is the country's War, and not the Government's War. It is the country's men who are soldiers and sailors; it is our sons and our brothers, our friends, who are fighting, and not merely those of the Government. I think before very long the country will demand, and the House of Commons will demand, that we shall know everything, and that nothing shall be kept from us. There are many things besides the question of compulsory service that we would like to mention. There is the subject which at all events some of us desire to raise, that of the protection of London—raised at Question Time. There is the subject of the condition of our aviation forces. These things have been put to one side for the last twelve months. The country is not putting them to one side. The country is talking about them and thinking about them. The House of Commons is the only place where, on these important questions, neither thought nor speech is allowed.

I observe that many of my hon. Friends, and almost, the whole of the Press, seem to be very fully and completely informed as to what, happens at Cabinet meetings. It is with feelings of humiliation and shame that I have to confess that I am not so well informed as to the individual views of Cabinet Ministers on subjects on which no Cabinet announcement has been made. I saw in the papers—as did some of my friends—lists purporting to give the views, of Cabinet Ministers on subjects on which the Cabinet has come to a decision. Some of the views given are in favour of that decision, and some are contrary to it. For my part I am inclined to disbelieve all these reports. I have never yet in the past found rumour and conjecture in the Press a sound guide as to the opinions of the Cabinet, or as to secret decisions of the Cabinet. I notice also that on the part of some of those who are dissatisfied with the decision of the Cabinet there is an attempt to represent that the Cabinet, cannot make up its mind, that the Cabinet cannot come to a decision, that the country is waiting for the Cabinet to give a lead on the important subject to which reference has been made to-day. I was under the impression that the Cabinet had given a decision—a quite definite decision. Before this House rose I heard the Prime Minister say, in answer to a question, that the Cabinet did not propose to introduce Conscription. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"]. I distinctly heard that statement made—that the Cabinet did not at that time propose to introduce Conscription. Naturally the Cabinet cannot come to any decision; which will be absolutely binding for the future—for different times and in different circumstances. But so far as I was able to understand, the Cabinet had come to the perfectly clear and definite decision that they did not propose to introduce Conscription at that time. It is possible that under different conditions and at a different time it may come to a different decision, but until it announces a different decision I hold—and I think I hold correctly—that the Cabinet has come to the decision that it does not intend to propose Conscription. Therefore I fail absolutely to understand the attitude of mind which tries to represent that the Cabinet has not come to a decision in this matter, or cannot come to a decision. Doubtless on this and other important subjects the Cabinet will do its best to inform itself upon all aspects of the subject. Especially at a time when there is an agitation about a subject, I think the Cabinet is doing the right thing thoroughly to inform itself upon all aspects of the subject. The fact that the Government does take steps to inform itself does not seem to me to indicate that the Cabinet cannot come to a decision.

I have said nothing at all of the merits of Conscription, and I do not propose to say anything upon the merits of that very important subject; but I notice that the discussion has strayed very considerably from the very important points raised by my hon. Friend opposite. So far as I understood him, he did not propose to raise in any manner the merits of Conscription. All he proposed to do was to raise the question of the propriety of certain distinguished members of His Majesty's Forces entering into public discussion and controversy, addressing memoranda on these important questions to the Press, and fostering public agitation on this subject. That is a very important and a very delicate question. I think the intervention of members of His Majesty's Forces, in highly controversial questions of this kind is contrary to our constitutional practice and tradition. But these are exceptional times. Three millions of the electors of this country are now serving in the Army. That is a very large proportion. At a time when Parliament is not so representative as it has been in the past—and it may be still less representative in the future—it may be desirable in some form or other to ascertain the views of that enormous proportion of our electors who are now serving in the Army. But the mischief done by this small number of members, who happen at the same time to be Members of this House, is that they, without any right at all, arrogate to themselves in this matter to represent the Army. They suggest that they represent three millions of our fellow subjects who are serving in the Army.

4.0 P.M.

They make that claim perfectly clearly. They made it to-day. It was suggested that some members—not the majority—of the Army are opposed to Conscription. Immediately there were loud cries of indignation from those who are in favour of Conscription, from those who happen to be Members of this House and also to be serving the Army, and who claim that they alone represent the Army and alone are entitled to speak for the Army. They are not in any respect entitled to speak for the Army. They have never been elected by the Army. They are doing a monstrous disservice to the Army by their putting themselves in a position to claim to speak for the Army, because then they force other people in the Army to claim the right to speak for themselves. I think also they introduce violent political controversy into the Army at a time when it should be thoroughly united. In my view—and I do not claim to have any views on technical military matters—the only way to win this War is to have a Government that you trust—and to trust it! You cannot win this War by discussions in this House. That is the very last means whereby you can win this War. There is only one way, and that is by having a Government you can trust, and trusting it. It is possible that some Members of this House have come to the conclusion that the present Coalition Government can no longer be trusted. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Here I find evidence of a most monstrous volte-face. When this Coalition Government was formed there was a great deal of suspicion about it on the part of many of my hon. Friends. As matters have turned out they have accepted the Coalition Government, and acquiesced in it. I think it may be said that the Coalition Government has a full measure of their confidence. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] But it is amazing to find those who fathered the Coalition Government, those who claim to have been the dictators at whose mandate it was appointed, turning against their offspring, and becoming enemies to it. [HON. MEMBER: "Who?" and "Name!"] It is only on the theory that these people have formed the deliberate plan of wrecking the Government, and of endeavouring to raise in this House as many embarrassing questions as they can with the object of wrecking it, that I can read reason and logic into the methods they have adopted.

I should not have risen now to stand in the way of other hon. Gentlemen were it not, as I understand, the fact that under our procedure this Debate must come to an end in the course of the next nine minutes, and I thought it would not be respectful to the House if I did not say a few words before the Debate compulsorily closed. I confess—and I say so with all respect to the House—that I do not think it has served any very good object. It began with the suggestion from one of my hon. Friends who sits behind me that we should meet in Secret Session, in order, I suppose, that facts with regard to the conduct of the War, which it is not expedient to make public to the country at large, should be made known to Members of this House. That suggestion has been made before, and when it was first made I said that, although it was entirely out of consonance with our Parliamentary traditions, if I found that it commanded anything like general assent, the Government would, at any rate, give it respectful consideration. Now, Sir, I have received no indication of any sort or kind in any quarter of the House that such a procedure would be welcome or palatable to Members: and, indeed, under the conditions in which Parliamentary life in these days is conducted, without imputing any disposition' or inclination on the part of anybody to a breach of confidence, nothing is more certain in the world than that imperfect, incomplete, inaccurate and distorted accounts of what had taken place would be given, and that no commensurate object in compensation for that great evil would be gained. So much for that.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) called attention to a communication, with which I was unacquainted, which appears to have been made to the Press by some officers on active service with the Army, with regard to the vexed question of compulsory service. I do not know anything about it myself, but in regard to that, and to other observations which have been made in the course of the Debate as to the duties and disabilities of Members of this House who are on active service, I should like to make, if I may, one remark. Under normal conditions a Member of this House who is on the active list is seconded. When war breaks out, particularly a War like this, when the country calls, and naturally calls for the service of every man who has held or holds His Majesty's commission, I think it would be unfair and contrary to the public interest that any such rule should be applied. But, on the other hand, I must say this, that when hon. Members gallantly serving at the Front come back on leave and resume their seats for a short time in this House, while it would be most unfair that their lips should be closed, they ought to feel themselves, and I believe for the most part do, under a very strict sense of responsibility. Let them remember that they sit here not as representing the Army. They sit here as representing the constituencies which send them here. The Army as an Army has no representation in this House, and it would be most unjust—and I think all of them on reflection would admit it—that, because they happen to be in the Army, gallant officers who are serving their country who are also Members of Parliament should claim to come here with any special mandate to represent opinion in the Army. It might be a fatal thing for the Army; it would be a very bad thing for the House of Commons.

That has not been claimed.

I am glad to hear it disclaimed. I wish to say myself, speaking as head of the Government, that it is a claim I will never admit, with the utmost respect, of course, and we show all respect to the first-hand testimony of men serving their country in the field. The Debate has ranged over a very large variety of topics, relating for the most part more or less directly to what I am sorry to say has become a question of public controversy, namely, the best way in which this country is to meet the call, which we all recognise, to bring the War to a successful end. You could not have a more unsatisfactory way of dealing with a problem so vital and so far-reaching than this sporadic and desultory discussion on a Motion for the Adjournment.

We ask for a day for it.

I am speaking of the speeches that have been made to-day. I entirely associate myself with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition. [Cries of "No, no," and laughter.] It is said—I do not know with what justification—that there were evidences of symptoms of division among us here, but I had hoped there was at least complete unanimity opposite. [Laughter.] I have only got half a minute more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] In that half minute I will say this: this is a matter which has not escaped the attention of His Majesty's Government. When the Government, without undue delay, with as much deliberation as the gravity of the subject demands, arrive at their conclusions, they will present them to the House, and they will become the subject of Parliamentary discussion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes after Four o'clock.